This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Consumer Protection Act
Vehicle Design Defect, Water Damage

Monita Sharma and Eric Anderson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BMW of North America LLC

Published: Jul. 19, 2014 | Result Date: Jun. 19, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 3:13-cv-02274-MMC Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Stuart C. Talley
(Kershaw, Cook & Talley PC)

Edward S. Wallace
(Law Office of Edward S. Wallace)

Amy Keller

Stephen M. Harris
(Law Offices of Stephen M. Harris PC)

Ian Barlow

William A. Kershaw
(Kershaw, Cook & Talley PC)


Defendant

Aengus H. Carr

Troy M. Yoshino
(Squire Patton Boggs LLP)


Facts

Monita Sharma and Eric Anderson filed a class action against BMW of North America LLC in connection with alleged water damages to electronic modules placed in BMW trunks.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs contended tthat they encountered problems with BMWs they had purchased due to a defective condition in that the electronic components were placed in the trunk, making them vulnerable to water damage. Plaintiffs asserted that BMW knew of the vulnerability of water damaging the electronic modules' placement in the truck, which constituted a defect in design. Plaintiffs also contended that BMW failed to inform its customers of the defect and refused to cover the costs of repair under its warranty. Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for breach of express warranty, violation of Consumers Legal Remedies Act, violation of Business & Professions Code, negligence, negligent failure to recall/retrofit, and injunctive and declaratory relief.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
BMW moved to dismiss the class action, arguing that Sharma lacked standing to seek injunctive relief and that plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action.

Result

The court granted BMW's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, giving plaintiffs the opportunity to amend the complaint to allege specifically when BMW knew of the vehicles' defect. The court denied BMW's motion to dismiss on lack of standing.


#82993

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390